## Abrahamic (Al-Ghazali) vs Hindu (Gita) > ...to use Al-Ghazali’s own example, if I were to set a piece of cotton alight, it would not be the case that the fire is burning it and producing smoke as a result of flame, combustion, and a complex set of chemical procedures. Instead, it is something which happens because *God Burns The Cotton*. A moment’s consideration will reveal why this becomes essentially problematic for anybody attempting to adhere to the rigorous standards of the scientific method … although in fairness to Al-Ghazali, he was actually attempting to argue that the observable laws of the Universe are not so much ‘not there’ [with The Almighty doing things on a whim instead], but instead strictures which Allah places upon himself in order to govern his own conduct [hence why things generally happen in the same way each time if the same conditions are applied/in place], but which are breakable as and when they are needed to be [thus explaining how ‘Miracles’ occur]. > [...] > In Chapter 11 [of the Bhagavad Gita], Arjuna asks to be shown Lord Krishna in His Divine Magnificence – and is granted an experience of Vishvarup Darshan... > Krishna has shown Arjuna the nature of Causality for this particular battle … he must “Get Up And Attain Glory” – recognizing his role as an implement/instrument of Divine Willl, and Doing The Things to make the Events which must happen … happen. If this was the God of Al-Ghazali, one presumes that the divinity in question might simply have directly intervened instead of first showing a man his ‘position/role’ in the Divine Plan, and telling him to carry it out. What I am basically arcing towards, then, is notion that despite the fact that ‘occasionalism’ is ARGUABLY present in causationary-metaphysics of Bhagavad Gita, what we find here is rather different in pracice. Perhaps d**ue to differences in understanding of ‘God’ concept between Indo-Europeans and Abrahamics**... > [[rolinson2017-06-25-oc]]